Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I'm curious as to what "reasonable suspicion means" especially when combined with the "determine the status" prong of that first paragraph. What's the standard for reasonable suspicion? It's clearly not probable cause. Is it the same as what federal authorities use.

---

another thing to take in consideration is whether or not the aspect of "exclusionary rule" would apply here as a deterrent. what kind of, if any rights, should be considered for the individuals that would be detained and/or arrested.

No mention of racial profiling in the suit for Obama against Arizona. Strange considering thats what everyone is worried about that hates the federal law, errr state law. You Obama supporters need to jump ship. He is tearing our country apart for what, votes? He will lose this lawsuit too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

another thing to take in consideration is whether or not the aspect of "exclusionary rule" would apply here as a deterrent. what kind of, if any rights, should be considered for the individuals that would be detained and/or arrested.

---

The individual ALWAYS has the right to challenge a legally inappropriate arrest.

They have the full rights and remedies of any legal citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Damn you are dense. The investigation/determination of immigrant status is done by the FEDS.

---

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE ... A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE ... TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

-----

The law forces (SHALL) state or local LE/Agency to attempt to determine the immigration status of the suspected alien/citizen. That right there is an investigation. The actual determination should be VERIFIED WITH (not BY) the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE ... A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE ... TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

-----

The law forces (SHALL) state or local LE/Agency to attempt to determine the immigration status of the suspected alien/citizen. That right there is an investigation. The actual determination should be VERIFIED WITH (not BY) the federal government.

---

So final YES/NO determination is made by the Feds.

Whats the fucking problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The individual ALWAYS has the right to challenge a legally inappropriate arrest.

They have the full rights and remedies of any legal citizen.

---

so if exclusionary rule would apply then the court would have to weigh the preponderance of whether the state of arizona was more at risk by holding the exclusionary rule to a rigid standard or whether the latter held precedence.

some interesting language stated in the terry ruling:

Quote:

---

"Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate."

---

Identification of Legal Residents is just too easy. There are many ways to prove it. Not being able to come up with one single form of documentation that they are a legal resident is reasonable cause for the locals to call the Feds. What is so difficult about that concept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Identification of Legal Residents is just too easy. There are many ways to prove it. Not being able to come up with one single form of documentation that they are a legal resident is reasonable cause for the locals to call the Feds. What is so difficult about that concept?

---

but the assertion is that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it exceeds the state's own power to enforce immigration laws or rather that only the federal government has the right to enforce and write immigration law. prememption has been used to overturn anti-immigrant legislation in pennsylvania and farmers branch, tx. when they tried to bar undocumented immigrants from renting property in those towns.

i've already mentioned the 4th ammendment aspect of the law and even though you stated that these individuals would get the same rights as any other legal citizen would, i suspect that because arizona would wish to avoid the catch 22 of having to provide legal representation to those arrested (and spend taxpayers dollars in doing so) then they would more likely just funnel people directly to ICE, where people would not have the right to counsel.

and even though people have won cases in immigration court when they have been able to show that police pulled them over because of their race, which is an illegal practice, the criteria to prove this in immigration court is stricter and thus it would be harder for an individual to prove someone was racially profiled and their fourth amendment rights violated.

so exclusionary rule would not be available to them and the supreme court would have to consider whether it should.

Holder is SOOO gonna lose this lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

so if exclusionary rule would apply then the court would have to weigh the preponderance of whether the state of arizona was more at risk by holding the exclusionary rule to a rigid standard or whether the latter held precedence.

some interesting language stated in the terry ruling:

---

You've got the law really jumbled up. Badly.

The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence seized in violation of the 4th amendment. It has no relevance as to whether or not an arrest is lawful. The standard as to whether an arrest is valid is whether the arresting officer had probable cause - ie that a fair probability exists - to blieve the suspect committed a crime. Preponderance of the evidence is a legal standard used to determine whether a particular evidentiary showing has been made and is inapplicable in criminal trials where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard is used. Terry might have some relevance here, but you got that wrong too. A Terry stop is a brief detention or seizure of a suspect based on the officers belief that criminal activity has occurred. The whole point of Terry was to allow lesser evidence, as you put it, to be allowed and all the officer has to show is specific and articulable facts showing the presence of criminality. The fact that Terry is an exception to the need to get a warrant further proves this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

You've got the law really jumbled up. Badly.

The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence seized in violation of the 4th amendment. It has no relevance as to whether or not an arrest is lawful. The standard as to whether an arrest is valid is whether the arresting officer had probable cause - ie that a fair probability exists - to blieve the suspect committed a crime. Preponderance of the evidence is a legal standard used to determine whether a particular evidentiary showing has been made and is inapplicable in criminal trials where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard is used. Terry might have some relevance here, but you got that wrong too. A Terry stop is a brief detention or seizure of a suspect based on the officers belief that criminal activity has occurred. The whole point of Terry was to allow lesser evidence, as you put it, to be allowed and all the officer has to show is specific and articulable facts showing the presence of criminality. The fact that Terry is an exception to the need to get a warrant further proves this.

---

what i was referring to was not regarding the application of evidence when prosecuting an illegal. the point was that the remarks made by the justices at that time made references to the aspect of exclusionary rule because they wondered whether or not a stringent application of it would benefit crime in the long run, or hinder the ability for law enforcement agencies to fight crime. but the primary reason that the justices mulled over this concern at all was because they knew that the primary victim of unreasonable searches were minorities:

Quote:

---

The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.

---

here their language essentially determined that there can be an effort to prevent racial profiling by the application of exclusionary rule but that even if such an application of that rule were executed to the tee that this would not in of itself stop the abuses common to the police.

this led them to the assertion that a reasonable search had to have more defined parameters and they concluded that "lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches" they then quoted beck v ohio and stated that:

Quote:

---

...simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police."

---

now lets juxtapose this aspect of exclusionary rule to the application of SB 1070 in arizona and you can see how the thinking behind terry v ohio can be used to argue against a "reasonable suspicion" and abuses that can arise from SB 1070 in that regard. this does not necessitate a significant leap of faith to see how racial profiling can occur here, especially in maricopa county (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/nation/la-na-sweeps-20100501)

Quote:

---

"...the fourth amendment as construed in Terry requires that the police officer have an articulable reasonable suspicion of crime to make the initial stop but the new arizona law adds an additional twist: if, after the initial stop, the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to ascertain the detainee's immigration status.

Hunches are only as good as the base of experience on which they rest. A person who has had numerous opportunities to sort undocumented immigrants from persons lawfully present in the United States–such as a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent–might develop an intuitive ability or "sixth sense" for detecting the former. But even then we would legitimately worry that skin color and accent would often play a large part in triggering the ICE agent's hunch. Moreover, Arizona state and local officials who lack training and experience sorting out undocumented immigrants would likely lean even more heavily on such illicit factors.

To be sure, there will be some circumstances that objectively give rise to reasonable suspicion, even without considering race or ethnicity. Writing in the New York Times last week, one of the law's authors gave the example of a police officer stopping a speeding minivan on "a known alien-smuggling corridor" and discovering twelve "passengers crammed inside," all lacking identification. Surely that would give rise to reasonable suspicion of immigration violations, he says. Indeed, that extreme case would satisfy the more demanding requirements of probable cause. But the Arizona law applies in numerous other contexts as well.

The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of whether the officials act on expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100503.html

---

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

---

and you are going to look like a complete dumbass when they don't..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

and you are going to look like a complete dumbass when they don't..

---

The ONLY way Arizona won't win is if Holder cherry picked an activist judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

---

I'm just waiting to see what the next totally stupid thing this administration does. Maybe libtards will actually gain a few IQ points.

keep in mind that the fed's suit is just one of many. this law is costing the taxpayers of arizona more and more money. and since there is no injunction at this time you also have the expenses that will mount regarding getting court appointed attorneys for those arrested as well as the expenses for holding those arrested in jails or other detention facilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

keep in mind that the fed's suit is just one of many. this law is costing the taxpayers of arizona more and more money. and since there is no injunction at this time you also have the expenses that will mount regarding getting court appointed attorneys for those arrested as well as the expenses for holding those arrested in jails or other detention facilities.

---

Are you saying Arizona will go bankrupt either way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you saying Arizona will go bankrupt either way?

---

no. seems more like a built in inference on your end.

Any nut can sue about anything. Just look at Holder and Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Any nut can sue about anything. Just look at Holder and Obama.

---

WTF...

You mean they have a nut between them?

i wonder if some of these posters realize that the bush administration was far more aggressive when it came to the employment of preemptive suits against the states.

Will the Fed sue Rhode Island, too? RI has already been enforcing a similar law on a regular basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Will the Fed sue Rhode Island, too? RI has already been enforcing a similar law on a regular basis.

---

because the governor of rhode island's mandate invoked section 287g of the immigration and nationality act, which is a federal law. there would be no preemption in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The more I read about this the funnier it gets. Obama/Holder are fucking idiots. Suing a state for enforcing a federal law? (even assuming you could call what they are actually doing enforcing Federal law...)

There are DOZENS of precedents where the Feds have FORCED States to enforce Federal laws...Environmental laws,The 55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age, Etc.

The list goes on and on. And NOW they want to pick and choose and PROHIBIT a state from enforcing a Federal law?

They are SO gonna get their ass handed to them in court...

---

I think they're not pursuing it as you're stating it.

They're suing Arizona because the federal government sees this role as exclusive to the jurisdiction of the federal government. For instance, if Arizona decided to start printing its own money and the Fed tried to sue them, would you say that the case had no chance because the state was doing something the Federal government does?

The Federal government certainly does have sole jurisdiction over some areas; this case will define how much "dealing with immigration" falls under that.

I have no clue whether the case will win or not, but I don't think you're interpreting it correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I think they're not pursuing it as you're stating it.

They're suing Arizona because the federal government sees this role as exclusive to the jurisdiction of the federal government. For instance, if Arizona decided to start printing its own money and the Fed tried to sue them, would you say that the case had no chance because the state was doing something the Federal government does?

The Federal government certainly does have sole jurisdiction over some areas; this case will define how much "dealing with immigration" falls under that.

I have no clue whether the case will win or not, but I don't think you're interpreting it correctly.

---

I don't even agree that the state is enforcing immigration laws. They are simply turning all suspected illegal immigrants they run across in the course of their state law enforcement over to the feds for final determination of immigration status and enforcement of immigration laws.